LIBBAEY 

OF THE 

COLUMBIAN COLLEGE, D. C. 



^J 



jfo.../dr3.2?^,...£yS. ^ J- \ 



I Dono dedit 



XQ^a^Q^gQsosgassgpgaosggggi 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



Chap. 
Shelf 






UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. j* ! 



ft Jr.cJa*&+> 

' -/ 








v ^J 




, OBJECTIONS 



TO A 

B APTI ST VERSION 

OF THE 

■i 

NEW TESTAMENT; 

BV 

WILLIAM T*BRANTLY, D. D. 

WITH 

ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR FKfiFEKRlNG THE 
ENGLISH BIBLE AS IT IS, 

OCTAVIUS WINSLOW, A. M. 



M Systems, schemes and hypotheses, all bred of heat in the warm region of 
controversy, shall, like meteors in a troubled skie, each have its turn to blaze 
and die away ; but the Bible is eternal, like the Sun ; the never failing 
source of light and heat." 

Bishop Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses. 



PUBLISHED BY J. P CALIE5DEH 



MDCCCXXXVIL 






U 



PREFACE. 

For religious controversy, we have but little taste, less incli- 
nation, and still less time. Nor do we regard it as the most 
healthy region for a Christian, especially for a Christian Minis- 
ter. For although it may occasionally develop and expand the 
passive graces of the Spirit, we yet believe that, more frequently, 
it is productive of the less amiable and lovely feelings of our un- 
sanctified natures. There are occasions however, when we are 
urged to it by the solemn and imperious call of duty. When the 
glory of God, and a tender solicitude for the true interests of the 
Church, demand a surrender of our love of ease, and a more pub- 
lic defence of the ' old paths' of truth and righteousness. 

In the discussion which occupies the ensuing pages, the wri- 
ters have not been insensible of the peculiar embarrassments with 
which it has been attended. From the subject itself, they have 
not been conscious of any perplexity. They are more than con- 
vinced that the views they have honestly advocated, are the pro- 
per views. The only hesitation they have felt, has arisen from 
the suggestion of their own minds, whether it were expedient to 
discuss the subject at the present moment, and thus give to it a 
publicity and importance which otherwise it probably would not 
receive, and did not merit, or allow it to remain in its obscurity, 
leaving the public mind unenlightened and unbiassed. After re- 
flection and prayer, however, it was decided, that as the subject 
had been occasionally agitated in several religious Journals, and 
impressions prejudicial to the interests and honour of the de- 
nomination had floated abroad, a regard for the welfare of the 
body to which they were strongly attached, demanded that the 
subject should stand before the Christian community placed upon 
its proper merits. 

It is proper to state, that the leading article in this work, ori- 
ginally appeared in the " Christian Review" for March 1837, 
for which valuable periodical it was especially written. The au- 
thor has however interwoven a few additional thoughts, which 
suggested themselves to his mind since its appearance in the 



iv PREFACE. 

' Review.' The second Essay on the character of the English 
translation, with additional reasons for dissenting from an amen- 
ded version, appear for the first time in their present form. 

It is always painful to our feelings to differ in religious opinion 
from Christian brethren, especially when bearing with us the same 
name, and maintaining ably and successfully, the same distinc- 
tive sentiments. No consideration whatever, but a keen sense 
of duty, would compel us thus publicly to avow and advocate 
opposing views. We have endeavoured to speak the truth 
in love* conscious of no feelings towards those who differ 
from us on this question, but those of fraternal kindness. We de- 
precate their measures, but would favourably interpret their mo- 
tives, and love their persons. Should God condescend to sanc- 
tion with His blessing this little work, to Him, as unto the Triune 
Jbhovah, shall be the praise and the glory* 



OBJECTIONS 



BAPTIST VERSION 



NEW TESTAMENT. 

We are not able to say, positively, that the ques- 
tion, Whether the present authorized version of the 
New Testament be sufficiently explicit as to the mode 
and subject of baptism, has been agitated to any 
great extent ; nor can we point directly to the quar- 
ter whence it has proceeded, not having noticed 
any discussions respecting it, except cursory ones 
in some religious periodicals. But it is enough to 
know, that such a question has been more than once 
moved, and that a proposal for a modified version 
of the present text has obtained a favorable hearing 
in sundry places. Nor is this all ; for it is under- 
stood, that those who disallow the proposal, and 
who consider it most consonant with safety and in- 
tegrity to retain unmutilated the established trans- 
lation, are regarded as very lukewarm advocates of 
the denominational faith, and as the authors of a 
policy at once temporizing and spiritless. So they 
have occasion not only to defend their position, but 
to repel the missiles which are likely to be thrown 

a 2 



by such as have entrenched themselves in a new 
location. We do not profess to stand between these 
two parties ; for if we should be so imprudent, we 
might, — to use a figure of the Greek historian, — be 
cut to pieces by both. And though we should es- 
cape injurious force from either side, still, accord- 
ing to the laws of perspective, we should appear to 
each adverse party to stand nearest his opponent ; 
since an object midway between two stations, when 
viewed from either, will appear most remote from 
that at which the observation is made ; and will, 
consequently, seem to be nearest to the opposite 
point. We shall rid ourselves of the suspicion of 
designing to occupy any middle ground, by pro- 
claiming, in limine, our sincere and unchanged 
attachment to the good old English version made 
by the order of king James I. It is our heart's de- 
sire and prayer to God, that this venerable monu- 
ment of learning, of truth, of piety and of unequalled 
purity of style and diction, maybe perpetuated to 
the end of time, just as we now have it. Let no 
daring genius meditate either change or amendment 
in its structure and composition ; neither let any 
learned impertinence presume to disturb the happy 
confidence of the tens of thousands who noW regard 
it as, — next to the original languages, — the purest 
vehicle through which the mind of the Holy Spirit 
was ever conveyed to mortals. Under God, and 
with God, we feel prepared to stand or fall with 



this consecrated instrument, known, and quoted, and 
familiarized, as the common standard version. Its 
errors and defects, — fewer than those of any trans- 
lation ever yet made, — we impute to human imper- 
fection. Its unrivalled excellence and accuracy we 
ascribe to the care and direction of divine provi- 
dence. We are not anxious to divest ourselves of 
the idea, that the translators, whatever their cha- 
racter anjl motives may have been, w r ere under the 
promptings and counsels of the Holy Spirit, in 
achieving the work which they gave to the world. 
By this, we mean not to intimate, that the gift of 
inspiration, in any peculiar sense, was their's ; nor 
yet that they were so directed in choosing a form of 
words, as that the only expressive and suitable ones 
were in every case suggested ; but this we do mean 
and insist upon, namely, that they were eminently 
fitted and qualified, by the unction of the divine 
Spirit, for the performance of a work destined to 
exert a mightier influence over rational nature, than 
was ever before exerted by any human composition. 
We trust, that its destiny is only yet in the incipi- 
ency of development, — that its past successes and 
beneficial results are but the earnest of that widely 
diffused blessing which mankind are yet to receive 
through the medium of its luminous pages. 

Of late, the complaint has been loud and strong, 
that a certain word, with its cognations and deriva- 
tives, had not been translated, instead of being 



8 

transplanted into the common version. And it is 
more than insinuated, that much injustice is done to 
us as a denomination, by the fault of the translation. 
It is contended, that if, instead of baptize and 
baptism, immerse and immersion, or some equiva- 
lent words, were substituted in the standard text of 
the New Testament, a more faithful and consistent 
sense would be secured, while w r e, as Baptists, would 
enjoy an ampler vindication of our views and senti- 
ments, when appealing to scripture authority. It is 
accordingly projected, as we learn, that the one 
transplanted word above named, with its deriva- 
tives, be rooted out of our version, and a new term 
of tantamount signification inserted in its place ; 
and that this amended version shall be for the use 
of the Baptist denomination. And what then ? The 
amended version cannot make us stronger Baptists 
than we now are ; it will therefore be a work of 
supererogation amongst ourselves ; and when offered 
to those whom we may wish to convert to our views, 
it will be promptly rejected as a mutilated instru- 
ment. Thus we shall have a version needless at 
home and powerless abroad, Our zealous study of 
exactness and precision will defeat itself. 

But why should the stem of a Greek root, trans- 
ferred to the English soil of our vulgar tongue, and 
there left standing and growing until it becomes 
naturalized, be offensive to us in these times ? Had 
our predecessors, who first met this exotic upon 



holy ground, almost two hundred years ago, then 
objected, and demanded its eradication, it would 
have appeared in them proper and reasonable, be- 
cause they might have urged that it was not indige- 
nous. They, however, so far as we know, made 
no objections, but began to preach, and quote, and 
expound the king's version. Now, when baptism 
and baptize have acquired an appropriate use, and 
have obtained a fixed and definite meaning in our 
language, and have a sacred and honorable enrol- 
ment on the records of history, it is proposed to 
have them superseded by other and less pregnant 
terms ! We do object to this, with all the earnest- 
ness of deprecation. 

We hope to show, first, that the untranslated word 
baptism and its derivatives have a fixed and deter- 
minate sense in the history of the Christian church, 
and therefore need no alteration. And, 

Secondly, That the substitution of other w r ords in 
lieu of these, would be a weak and pernicious ex- 
pedient. 

Thirdly, That our opponents on the baptismal 
question would have reason to congratulate them- 
selves, in the event of such an innovation. 

Fourthly, We should thereby deprive ourselves 
of a very powerful argument in the baptismal con- 
troversy. 

Whilst, lastly, we might be in danger of laying 
too much stress upon an external rite. 



10 

First* It may be useful, to advert to one source 
of misconception in regard to such words as are 
transferred and not translated, in our version of the 
Scriptures. It is usual to speak of such words, and 
especially of baptism and its kindred terms, as if 
they were, in fact, unintelligible Greek, in Roman 
letters. The idea is, that there is nothing English 
in them, except the alphabetic character, and that, 
in other respects, they are little better than a barba- 
rous jargon. This notion, we judge, has been pro- 
ductive of much discontent amongst us, and has 
generated an importunate demand for new versions 
and adequate translations. But it is evident, that 
this demand is based upon misunderstanding. 
Are we to be told, that a word which has 
been incorporated into the English language from 
the earliest times,— which has had a fixed and full 
import,— which was sounded forth in direct con- 
nexion with Christian worship for ten centuries, 
with a sense free from all ambiguity, is now to be 
thrust aside, for the sake of introducing a so called 
translation ? As well might we expel from their 
ancient places the amen and halleluia of prayer 
and praise, and even the blessed name of Christ, 
upon the plea, that they need an English rendering. 
We meet the language of the common Bible just as 
we meet old friends. Their looks, their gestures, 
their open bearing, their guileless simplicity, all 
please and edify us. The pragmatic diligence which 



11 

would displace them and foist in strangers upon 
us would not entitle itself to our thanks. For our 
part, we are free to confess, that we should not feel 
quite at home, were we to meet in the study of the 
sacred word, immersion, plunging, dippings or any 
other expression, in place of baptism. We should feel 
that we were in strange company, and should begin 
to inquire for the rightful tenants of the habitation. 
The words sanctification and redemption, in theo- 
logy, are technical terms, and are transferred from 
the Vulgate to our version ; but does any one object 
to these words on account of their Latinity ? Their 
meaning is admitted by general consent ; and all 
persons using them are mutually intelligible. The 
transplantations from Latin into our language have 
added materially to its copiousness and beauty, if 
not to its expressiveness. Still more material to the 
advancement of science and art, have been the im- 
portations from the Greek, Is it just, to censure 
the words, either of a Greek or Latin original, pro- 
vided they be faithful representatives of the things 
which they promise to represent ? We shall prove, 
in the sequel, that the word to baptize has become 
truly and philologically an English word, and that 
it has faithfully discharged the important trust com- 
mitted to it. 

It has been asked, why a word capable of a pro- 
per translation should be retained in our version of 
the New Testament ; and it has been suggested, that 



12 

there would be the same reason for declining a ver- 
sion of any other prominent word in the original text, 
as of baptism. To which it may be replied: Any 
language, in treating of matters and things which 
may have originated with the people using it, will 
contain words and forms of speech incapable of a full 
translation to any other language. All who have had 
any experience in the business of translation, will be 
able at once to appreciate this remark. It would be 
difficult to read a page of any author in a foreign or 
dead language, without meeting words or phrases, 
which have nothing in exact correspondence with 
them in our own language. This is especially the 
case in all descriptions of religious ceremony, in 
which rites and observances are to be exhibited and 
explained. We are, consequently, of opinion, that 
the idea contained in the word baptism^ as used in 
the New Testament, cannot be adequately expressed 
by any other single word in our language. It means 
more than immersion. It contains the idea of im- 
mersion, and, at the same time, gives a character to 
that idea, stamps a sacredness upon it, confers a re- 
ligiousness upon its import. And we are now pre- 
pared to show, that all the versions in languages using 
the Roman character or alphabet, were made with 
the express understanding, that paicTt^m was trans- 
ferred and not translated, because there did not ap- 
pear to be, in those languages, words of an import 
fully equivalent. 



13 

The Latin Vulgate, revised and published by Je- 
rome towards the close of the fourth century, is the 
oldest version of the New Testament in existence. 
When, or by whom it was made, is not known. 
But as Jerome found it in being in his time, it must 
have been made some time prior to him. In this 
translation, P<x7itl6uo6, pa7tTt6ua y paTtrifa, etc., are left, 
without an exception, in their original form, latini- 
zed. Christians of the west, among whom the Latin 
language was the vulgar tongue, chiefly used this 
version ; and it is to their practice we must look for 
the true sense of the words in question. If we find, 
that the administration of the ordinance of baptism, 
in those early times, consisted of the immersion into 
water of each candidate, and of the proper invocation 
of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we may then assert, 
without fear of contradiction, that to baptize, in the 
then acceptation of the word, was to dip, plunge, 
or bury in water, with religious solemnity, and for 
initiation into the church of Christ. We use the 
accompanying phrase, religious solemnity, and for 
initiation into the church of Christ? with special de- 
sign, — because so much is necessarily implied in 
every true definition of baptism. The author or au- 
thors of the Vulgate being, therefore, unable to con- 
vey, in any single word in the Latin tongue, the full 
sense of the original, contented themselves with the 
Italian modification of the Greek word. The pro- 
duction of one authority, in proof of the prevalent 

B 



14 

signification of the word in the period to which we 
refer, shall suffice. It is the declared judgment of 
one who will not be suspected of any partiality to- 
wards Baptists, whose testimony must be regarded 
as founded upon a thorough knowledge of all the 
facts in the case, and who is impelled, by a due sense 
of truth and candor, to give utterance to the sen- 
tence which he has left on record. The authority 
to which we refer is that of the celebrated author of 
the History of Infant Baptism, William Wall, D. D. 
He says, when writing of the times to which our 
attention is now directed : 

" Their general and ordinary way was to baptize by immer- 
sion, or dipping the person in the water. This is so plain and 
clear, by an infinite number of passages, that as one cannot but 
pity the weak endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would maintain 
the negative of it ; so, also, we ought to disown and show a dis- 
like of the profane scoffs which some people give to the English 
Anti-pedobaptists, merely for their use of dipping. It is one 
thing to maintain, that that circumstance is not absolutely neces- 
sary to the essence of baptism, and another (o go about to repre- 
sent it as ridiculous and foolish, or as shameful and indecent, 
when it was, in all probability, the way in which our blessed Sa- 
viour, and for certain, was the most usual and ordinary way by 
which the ancient Christians, did receive their baptism. I shall 
not stay to produce the particular proofs of this. Many of the 
quotations which I brought for other purposes, and shall bring, 
do evince it. It is a great want of prudence as well as honesty 
to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true, and may 
be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says. 3 ' 
History of Infant Baptism page 462. 



15 

The paragraph last quoted is a most considera- 
ble document, and one the more valuable, because 
it is manifestly extorted from the author by the na- 
ked force of truth and honesty. Then it is undenia- 
ble, that when the Vulgate was first brought into 
use, the general understanding was, that to baptize 
meant to immerse or dip, as a religious solemnity for 
initiation into the church of Christ* We have thus 
the history of the Christian church brought in to 
settle and determine the meaning of the word; and 
surely there never was a word in any vocabulary, 
whose signification was more limited and unequivo- 
cal. The most celebrated writers, both in Greek and 
Latin, continued to bear one uniform and decided 
testimony for ten centuries from the apostolic age, 
that to baptize was to immerse in water, for the ex- 
hibition of a Christian rite. It is true, that some of 
these writers contended that affusion, or the pouring 
on of water was sufficient to answer the purpose of 
baptism. This ground, however, they assumed, not 
because there was any double meaning in the words 
expressive of the ordinance, or any doubt as to the 
ancient and apostolic practice, but because of an in- 
solent dogma, which obtained an early extension* 
namely, that though immersion was the primitive 
way, yet the quantity of water applied was a matter 
of indifference. Cyprian appears to have been one 
of the first advocates and promoters of affusion in 
baptism. But he pleads for it, not on the pretence 



16 

that the word may mean to wash, to pour, or to 
sprinkle, for he knew better ; but upon the ground 
of necessity. He says, in his letter to one Magnus, 
a countryman, who sought to know whether those 
who were baptized in bed, as Novatian was, must 
be baptized again, if they recover. " In the sacra- 
ment of salvation, when necessity compels, the short- 
est ways of transacting divine matters do, by God's 
gracious dispensation, confer the whole benefit." 
Cyprian here sets up the plea of necessity and trusts 
in Go(Ts gracious dispensation, to obtain a sanction 
for affusion or pouring. Had he resembled some of 
our modern doctors, he would have put forth the 
plea of ambiguity in the word ; and in defiance of 
all principle in philological disquisition, would have 
said that the word baptism means affusion as well as 
immersion — in the sense of the language of the New 
Testament. 

The strong plea of necessity, together with the vene- 
rable authority of Cyprian, was not enough to render 
pouring and sprinkling fashionable in Italy for a long 
term of years. For, to quote from Wall, " In the times 
of Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventur, immersion was in 
Italy the most common way. Thomas thus speaks (3* 
q. 66, art. 7), ' Baptism may be given not only by im- 
mersion, but also by affusion of water, or sprinkling with 
it. But it is the safer way to baptize by immersion, be- 
cause that is the most common custom. By immersion 
the burial of Christ is more lively represented, and there- 



17 

fore this is the most common and commendable way.* 
Bonaventur says (1. 4, dist. 3, art. 2, q. 2). l The 
way of affusion was properly used by the apostles, and 
was in his time in the churches of France and some 
others ; but the way of dipping into the water is the 
more common, and the jitter, and the safer" Wa- 
lafridus Strabo, in the year 850, Rupertus and others, 
1120, represent immersion to have been the general cus- 
to m inGermany at those respective periods. 

WiclifPs translation of the Scriptures was made in the 
year 1330, and may be regarded as the oldest English 
version extant. It lay rusting in manuscript, however, 
until 1731, when the New Testament was published by 
Lewis, and more recently a new and revised edition has 
appeared, under the authorship of the Rev. Henry Her- 
vey Baber, with a life of WiclifF prefixed. This very 
ancient translation, and the first, too, ever made into 
English, is a most literal rendering from the Vulgate. 
The word to baptize, with all its kindred terms, is, ac- 
cordingly, transferred and not translated. What Wi- 
cliflf understood, therefore, by that word, must be col- 
lected from history. Both Neale and Crosby have re- 
ported Wicliff to have been an anti-pedobaptist. In this 
they are manifestly wrong, since his works afford proof 
to the contrary. See Baber' s Life of Wicliff, xxxii. 
But it appears, that immersion or dipping was under- 
stood by him to constitute baptism. Like others who 
had preceded him, and in accordance with the rule of a 

church which had declined from pristine simplicity, he 

b 2 



18 

admitted, in cases of necessity (the old pretence of Cy- 
prian), pouring or sprinkling'. Another paragraph from 
Wall will cast light on this point. See page 469: 
" Some do prove from Wicliff, that it was held indif- 
ferent in England, in his time, whether dipping or pour- 
ing were used, because he says at one place, c Nor is 
it material whether they he dipped once or thrice^ or 
water be poured on their heads. But it must he done 
according to the custom of the place where one 
dwells? But we ought to take the whole context as it 
lies in his book. He had been speaking of the necessity 
of baptism to salvation, from that text John 3 : 5, and 
then adds, Et ordinavit ecclesia quod quaelibet persona 
fidelis in necessitatis articulo poterit [baptizare] nee re- 
fert, &c. And the church has ordained that in a case 
of necessity, any person that is ftdel, or that is himself 
baptized, may give baptism. Nor is it material whether 
they be dipped, etc. Such words do not suppose any 
other way than dipping used ordinarily." 

We here meet the very fact in history which sub- 
stantiates our position. While the English language 
was as yet in its crude elements, trunca membris, 
like some " half formed reptile on the banks of 
Nile," to baptize meant ordinarily to immerse or dip. 
At the same time, the offices or liturgies for public 
baptism in the church of England, did uniformly 
enjoin immersion, without any mention of pouring 
or sprinkling. The " Manuale ad Usum Sarum" 
printed 1530, 21st of Henry VHIth directs the priest 



19 

to take the child, and, naming it, to dip him in the 
water. John Frith, in a treatise on baptism, 1533, 
styles the external action, " the plunging down into 
the water, and the lifting up again." In all the 
books of common prayer, during and after the 
period in question, as far down as the beginning of 
the eighteenth century, the formula always directs 
dipping, before pouring, in baptism* It is con- 
ceded, that the baptism of infants was one of the 
tenets of the several periods to which yve have re- 
sorted for proof of our point. As, however, our 
purpose is simply to establish a uniform meaning 
for the words baptism and baptize, it matters not 
whether the parties be infants or adults. Our ob- 
ject, so far, is attained, provided they were dipped 
or immersed. For we are not settling a question 
about the proper subjects of baptism, but one re- 
specting the mode, as that mode is presented to us 
by a particular word in the common version, which 
we would not have altered, 

We shall now pass on to investigate the established 
sense of the word at the very time when the present 
authorized translation was made. It is the opinion 
of some, that the translators of our present ver- 
sion were laid under restrictions by James I., — 
at whose instance the work was undertaken, — as 
to the rendering of certain words. And it cannot 
be denied, that the instructions of the king to the 
translators have some restrictive clauses. These r 



20 

however, are not of such a nature as to interfere, in 
the least, with their general freedom of translation, 
as will be seen in the instructions themselves, copied 
from Thomas Fuller'' s Church History of Britain. 
See book X., p. 46, 47. 

" 1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called 
the Bishops 5 Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the 
original will permit. 

" 2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with 
the other names in the text, to be retained as near as may be 
accordingly as they are vulgarly used. 

''3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; that is, as the 
word church, not to be translated congregation, &c. 

"4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept 
which hath been most ^commonly used by the most eminent 
fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the 
analogy of faith. 

" 5. The division of the chapters to be altered, either not at 
alitor as little as may be, if necessity so require. 

" 6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed but only for the ex- 
planation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, with- 
out some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the 
text. 

" 7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as 
shall serve for the fit reference of one scripture to another. 

" 8. Every particular man of each company to take the same 
chapter or ^chapters, and having translated or amended them 
severally by himself, where he thinks good, all to meet together, 
confer what they have done, and agree for their part what shall 
stand, 

9. As any one company hath despatched any one book in this 
manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seri- 
ously and judiciously. For his majesty is very careful in this 
point. 

i( 10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, 
shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word there- 
of, note the places, and therewithal send their reasons, to which 
if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the 



21 

general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each 
company, at the end of their work. 

" 11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, 
letters to be directed by authority, to send any learned in the 
land, for his judgment in such a place 

" 12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of hi^ 
clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move 
and charge as many as, being skilful in the tongues, have taken 
pains in that kind, to .send his particular observations to the 
company, either at Westminster, Cambridge or Oxford. 

" 13. The directors in each company to be the deans of West- 
minster and Chester for that place, and the king's professors iu 
Hebrew and Greek in each university. 

" 14. These translations to be used when they agree better 
with the text than the Bishops' Bible, viz., Tindai's, Mathews', 
CoverJale's Whitchurch's. Geneva." 

The learned persons to whom the foregoing in- 
structions were sent, were all members of the Esta~ 
Wished Church of England, and forty-seven in 
number. Their commission from the king bears 
date Anno Domini 1607, being the fifth year of 
James I. They were forbidden the translation of 
proper names and of certain ecclesiastical terms, as 
church, &c. They were also required to conform as 
nearly as possible to a previous translation, called the 
Bishops' Bible. They might, too, consult and adopt 
that which seemed most agreeable to the original 
text in the versions of Tindal, Mathews, Coverdale, 
Whitchurch, and the Geneva translation. If baptism 
was one of the old ecclesiastical words which were 
to be retained, it certainly could not have been 
because any partiality for infant sprinkling was 
detected in that term. It had been, up to the 



22 

time when king James' version was made, the 
uniform and invariable understanding, that to bap- 
tize signified to dip or plunge into water. It was 
the common understanding and practice at that 
time, and after that time. " Dipping," says Wall, 
u must have been pretty ordinary during the former 
half of king James' reign, if not longer." The same 
historian mentions a pamphlet written by a Mr. Blake 
in 1645, — that is, nearly forty years after the publi- 
cation of king James' Bible,- — showing clearly what 
must have been the common opinion and usage at 
that time. This Mr. Blake was a clergyman of the 
Church of England. In reply to his opponent, who 
had objected to the baptism of infants, the fact, that 
they were not dipped, but sprinkled, he says, " I 
have been an eye-witness of many infants dipped, 
and know it to have been the constant practice of 
many ministers in their places for many years to- 
gether. I have seen several dipped ; I never saw 
nor heard of any sprinkled." It would thus appear, 
that up to 1845, immersion was the prevailing prac- 
tice in the English Church, and that the custom of 
sprinkling was introduced subsequent to that period. 
There can be little doubt, that the famous assembly 
of Westminster divines were the first to impart 
countenance and currency to the practice of sprink- 
ling in lieu of baptism. This learned assembly, not 
being able to remember, that fonts or places of much 
water had been always used by the primitive Chris- 



23 

tians, reformed the font into a basin ; and in their 
zeal against popery, subverted one of the institu- 
tions of Christ. Wall himself ridicules the sprink- 
lers. " The minister continuing in the desk," he 
says, " the child was brought and held before him. 
And there was placed for that use a little basin of 
water, about the ^bigness of a syllabub-pot, into 
which the minister dipping his fingers, and then 
holding his hand over the face of the child, some 
drops would fall from his fingers on the child's 
face." When the Presbyterians and Independents 
ceased to wield the religious destines of England, 
and the restoration of the monarchy enabled the 
Church of England to resume its functions, that 
church still did not forego its maxim, that dipping 
was the primary meaning of baptism. And conse- 
quently, in the revision of the liturgy, it was pro- 
vided, that in every case where it was duly certi- 
fied, that the child, could ivell endure //," baptism 
should be performed by dipping. 

It is hence manifest, that although that ancient 
and venerable word, which it is now proposed to 
expunge from the New Testament, be a transplanted 
Graecism, yet at first it took root and grew firmly 
and vigorously in our language ; and though abused 
by others, ought not to be abandoned by those who 
style themselves Baptists. In their view, as well 
as in good truth and sound criticism, the word has 
sustained itself in its primitive force and fulness* 



24 

For many centuries, it held in check that spirit of 
innovation which began at an early period, to cor- 
rupt the simplicity of Christian worship, and spoke 
with a voice so commanding, as to overawe the ad- 
venturous movers of change and sophistication. 

We are not ignorant, that many Christians of the 
present day contend, that sprinkling is baptism, — 
that pouring on water is baptism, — that any appli- 
cation of water is baptism ; and that the word, both 
in its original and in its transferred state, means any 
use of water in the ceremony of initiation, from an 
ocean to a drop. In like manner, the asserters of 
clerical gradation in the church maintain,, that the 
word bishop means a minister of the gospel 5 vested 
with superior powers. The defenders of Presbyte- 
rianism allege, that the word presbytery means a re- 
ligious judicatory, having a sort of legal cognizance 
over the churches w r ith which they are connected. 
The Universalist cannot discern any thing beyond a 
limited duration of time in the words eternal and 
everlasting. And not a few, both in ancient and mo- 
dern times, are able to discover in the Saviour's re- 
quisition for man to be horn again, nothing more 
than water-baptism. From all which the inference 
is plain, viz. that human ingenuity will never cease 
to be inventive in justifying that which may appear 
to it to be most right and proper. In our opinion, 
they who make sprinkling to be baptism, abuse the 
word from its rightful import They who find mi- 



25 

nisterial orders and distinctions in the New Testa- 
ment, and who therefore style one man bishop, and 
set him over his fellow-servants, are, in our esti- 
mation, chargeable with an abuse. To say, that 
eternal and everlasting signify no more than a limi- 
ted duration is, in our judgment, even a greater 
abuse of language than to call sprinkling baptism. 
And to affirm that to be born again is nothing more 
than ivater-baptism-, is an audacious profanation. 
But are we, therefore, to abandon the abused words ? 
Must we go about to invent a new vocabulary, be- 
cause the old has suffered perversion ? Since the 
old editions are counterfeited and corrupted, are we 
to frame plates with new impressions, to supersede 
the old ones, in the vain hope of obviating abuse for 
the time to come ? At such a rate of procedure, we 
might find employment enough in bringing out an- 
nually purified editions of the Bible. 

At this stage of our inquiry, we request our read- 
ers to advert, for a short time, to the explicit tes- 
timony of eminent English critics on the significa- 
tion of the terms baptize and baptism. The cele- 
brated Richard Bentley, D, D. who flourished to- 
wards the close of the seventeenth century and was 
one of the most eminent critics that England ever 
produced, is cited by that powerful opponent of 
infant baptism, Abraham Booth, as an authority for 
fixing the sense of the word baptism. In his dis- 
course on Free Thinking, pp. 56, 57, he defines 
baptisms " dippings," and to baptize "to dip." 



26 

Bishop Reynolds, probably a descendant of John 
Reynolds, D. D., one of the translators of the Bi- 
ble under the authority of king James, expresses 
the import of the word to baptize: u The Spirit 
under the gospel," says he " is compared to water ; 
and that, not a little measure to sprinkle or bedew, 
but to baptize the faithful in ; and that not in 
a font or vessel which grows less and less, but 
in a spring or living river."— Works, pp. 226, 
407. 

The observation of the learned Selden,— see his 
■works, voL 6, foh ed. cot 2008, — is both pungent 
in application and comprehensive in sense. a In 
England, of late years," remarks that justly re 
nowned scholar, " I ever thought the person bapti- 
zed his own fingers rather than the child." Selden 
was a member of the Westminster Assembly. 

Dr. Owen concedes " that the original and natu- 
ral signification of the word baptize is to dip, to 
plunge, to dye." And Dr. Hammond, speaking of 
the word to baptize^ says, " It signifies not only the 
washing of the whole body, as when it is said of 
Eupolis, that, being taken and thrown into the sea, 
epaTtTl&to, he was immersed all over, and so the bap- 
tisms of cups is putting them into the water all 
over ; but washing any part, as the hands, by way 
of immersion in water." Mathew Poole's Continua- 
tors declare, that " to be baptized is to be dipped 
in water;" and Doddridge also makes baptism and 
immersion the same. See on Luke 12 : 50, 



27 

Parkhurst renders the Greek word fiamifa, im- 
merse, dip or plunge. And Dr. George Campbell 
maintains, that immerse is very nearly equivalent to 
baptize in the language of the Gospels. 

We must refer those who would see a more. co- 
pious induction of particular authorities, to Booth's 
Pedobaptism Examined, — a work which, if candid- 
ly studied, is sufficient to correct the error of all 
Pedobaptists in the world. All who read the mul- 
titudinous citations in Booth will ask this question : 
How could the learned and pious men, whose names 
are there brought together, justify their deviation 
from an admitted rule, an acknowledged precedent, 
a clearly expressed command ? Was their defection 
from ancient order owing to the fact, that the word 
in which that order was dictated had not been trans- 
lated ? This is an impossible supposition, since it 
is evident that the true and proper translation was 
all the time before their eyes. They could only see 
immersion in the primary signification of the word. 
Whether they viewed that word in the sacred wri- 
ters, in ecclesiastical historians, or in the classic 
pages of Grecian antiquity, immersion, — immersion, 
reiterated with obvious import, — sounded in their 
ears. On all the monuments commemorative of bap- 
tism in the ancient church, immersion stared them 
in the face. They knew, therefore, that baptism 
was immersion ; neither was it possible for them to 
dissemble the conviction of their minds, as must 
be seen in the long list of concessions and ad- 



28 

missions which the venerable Booth has brought to 
light. 

They had, however, a way to escape being con- 
victed of downright inconsistency. It was, that to 
pour or sprinkle might be found in the word to 
baptize ; that this was one of its secondary signifi- 
cations. In the same way, they could have found a 
secondary sense in the word to dip, by which only 
a partial application of water would have been in- 
tended. cc It is plain," they would have said, 
u that the word is often used in cases where a total 
immersion cannot be designed." So we read, that 
Jonathan put forth the end of the rod which was 
in his hand, and u dipped it in a honey-comb." 
" Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his 
finger in water." It is also common, to speak of 
dipping the pen in the ink. Sometimes, when the 
word is used in connexien with a liquid, it means 
no more than to moisten, to wet ; which sense is 
established by Milton : 

" And though not mortal, yet a cold, shuddering dew 
Dips me all o'er, as when the wrath of Jove 
Speaks thunder." 

According to the same convenient dexterity in 
stifling the import of words, immerse could have 
been made significant of something other than burial 
in water. We should have heard it said, to be im- 
mersed in cares, to be immersed in pleasures, are 
common forms of speech, which do not mean to be 
wholly buried. And from this allusive application 



29 

of the word, it would have been inferred, that ail 
the demands of immersion may be answered by a 
partial application of water. 

If, therfore, with the consent of all parties, we 
could now have a change from baptize to immerse^ 
in process of time, we might find ourselves in want 
of a new version. The inventive talents of our 
affusion brethren would discover something in im- 
merse less than immersion, as they have found out 
that something is baptism, which is less than bap- 
tism. We should thus be driven from one position 
to another, like a retreating and vanquished army, 
unable to maintain any ground against an encroach- 
ing adversary. To such, the very first retreat 
proves fatal, because it evinces distrust of the occu- 
pied fortress, and a desire to reach some other one, 
supposed to be more capable of sustaining any as- 
sault. In the passage from one to the other, dis- 
comfiture and ruin are encountered. 

Having proved, as we trust, to the satisfaction of 
all unbiassed readers, that the words baptize and 
baptism have a fixed and determinate sense in the 
history of the Christian Church, we may confidently 
disallow the propriety of any change in those words. 
Even though we had other words of an equivalent 
import, and equally pregnant in meaning, yet the 
alteration which has been proposed would be un- 
desirable. For, if the offered substitutes signify no 
more, why, for the sake of change merely are they 

c 2 



30 

to be introduced. If they signify less, they should 
not be admitted. That they signify no more has 
been proved ; and that they are less direct and suit- 
able has been likewise substantiated. Nothing then 
but the recklessness of innovation could be gratified 
by such a change. It would be worse than super- 
fluous, to go about to mend a portion of the standard 
version, under conditions and circumstances which 
strongly urge that no emendation can better the 
case. To reverse the simile of the Saviour, it would 
be like the application of an old cloth to a rent pur- 
posely made in a new garment. 

It is generally known that Luther's version of the 
New Testament, now the standard translation for 
German Protestants, has the words in dispute, trans- 
latecL It is likewise understood at least among 
baptists, that the German translation is strong for 
immersion, and that Luther himself was so. But 
out of the twenty millions of German protestants 
in Europe and America none, excepting a few dun- 
kers, are found to practise immersion in baptism. 
If a translation is to be so potent as some would re- 
present, why has not Luther's version kept the Lu- 
therans right ? why, with their translation staring 
them in the face, have they continued almost with 
o,ne consent, from the days of Luther to this time, 
in the practice of sprinkling or pouring ? The ques- 
tion admits only one reply. The translation has 
been of no avail to restrain or correct their practi- 
cal aberrations. Neither would a translation do us 
Miiy good. 



31 

We are thus conducted to the second view, in 
which we proposed to exhibit the subject before us, 
The creation of a new version, with no change of 
the authorized one, other than the substitution of 
different words in lieu of baptize and baptism, would 
be, on our part, an expedient weak and pernicious. 

To demonstrate the utter imbecility of such a 
contrivance, we have only to suppose [a case. A 
Baptist, with an altered copy of the New Testa- 
ment in his hand, meets his Pedobaptist neighbor, 
who adheres to the old translation. They enter 
into an amicable discussion of the only topic on 
which they are known to disagree touching the 
serious matter of religion. In order to refute at 
once every argument which his opponent may ad- 
duce, the Baptist brother brings forth his amended 
version, and behold, in every case, instead of bap- 
tize and baptism, he shows immerse and immersion. 
The affusion or aspersion brother charges his Bap- 
tist neighbor at once with the corruption of the 
word of God, and refuses to be reasoned with out of 
such Scriptures. The Baptist, on the other hand, 
contends, that he is guilty of no such charge, — that 
lie has made no alteration in the text of the New 
Testament, but has only translated a word which 
heretofore had not been translated ; and that the true 
sense of that controverted word is now manifested 
in his new version. Will the advocate for affusion or 
aspersion here end the debate, by yielding his cor- 
dial acquiescence in the propriety of the translation ? 



32 

We think not ; but a new controversy will arise on 
the fitness and truth of the translation. The Pedo- 
baptist will assert that the translation contains a 
gratuitous assumption, namely, that only immersion 
is baptism ; and in defence of his assertion, he will 
quote the theological authorities on that side. The 
Baptist will contend, that only immersion is bap- 
tism ; and, in vindication of his ground, will cite 
the philological authorities on his side. Here, then, 
are both parties reduced to the very point at which 
they stood, before any alteration in the standard 
translation was made. For then they explained bap- 
tism, each according to the respective authorities on 
his side. They do the same thing yet, and are no 
nearer the attainment of undeniable premises, than 
they were before the mutilation of the texts re- 
lating to the matter in dispute. The truth is, the 
kind of reasoning which the Baptist would employ, 
in such a case, is the circular syllogism. He says, 
It is immersion, because the original word, which 
is not translated, but transferred, is baptism ; and 
it is baptism, because it is immersion. What ob- 
ject, except the exhaustion of strength and the irri- 
tation of excitable feelings, can ever be gained by 
running round in a circle ? The canine quadruped, 
coursing a cii cle in quest of his own tail, is the fit 
symbol of such futile expenditures of power. 

But, in sober verity, something, after all, is ac- 
complished. In his eagerness for a new version, the 
Baptist incurs the imputation, either of disingenous- 



33 

ness, or of conscious impotency. To alter even the 
wording of a law, otherwise obscure and doubtful, 
for the sake of gaining a decision in our own favor, 
would be an unwarrantable procedure, and would 
expose us to the blame of an unfairness little short 
of dishonesty. After we have agreed with all 
Protestants using the English language, that the 
translation of 1607 — 9, made in the fifth year 
of James I., shall be a standard of scripture 
truth for us in common with them, and as a deno- 
mination, have been in the habit of renewing the ra- 
tification of that agreement by appealing constantly 
to that instrument for more than two centuries, to 
begin now, at this late day, to recede from the con- 
ventional understanding, would carry with it the 
implication of at least a qualified defection from the 
protestant ranks. The conventional understanding 
to which we refer, has been tacit, rather than for- 
mal and explicit ; but it is not the less binding, on 
account of the want of any formal celebrations. We 
stand as parties pledged to the support and defence 
of what, as a body, we have received and relied on 
with one consent for two hundred and thirty years. 
There must be a most valid reason to justify the re- 
traction of our bond. 

It would appear injurious to us, as a denomination, 
to renounce the agreeable and euphonic title of Baptists ; 
and especialy, to take in place of it that of dippers, or 
even immersers, or immersionists. Even though a 
name import something doubtful or exceptionable, it is 



34 

seldom eligible to change it. But our distinctive title is 
now consecrated by long and pious usage, besides being 
very expressive and agreeable, both to the heart and 
understanding. And though u a rose may be as sweet 
by any other name," yet it is scarcely so respectable. 

There can be no doubt, however in the third place, 
that if we desire to afford our brethern of Pedobaptist 
persuasions an occasion of self-gratulation, we may go 
en and make the proposed alterations in the received 
translation of the Bible. Still, it can with difficulty be 
reconciled to the charities of Christianity, to supose, that 
they would be able to rejoice at seeing us perpetrate 
such a scandal against ourselves. Would not the good 
men among them mourn over our mischievous temerity ? 
But the great body of them would think themselves well 
rid of a troublesome class of opponents. They would 
rejoice to find, that their labor of controversy with Bap- 
tist views and principles was at an end ; and that they 
could proceed without contradiction in their favorite 
practice of sprinkling or pouring water, under the name 
of baptism. For when once we renounce their version, 
and adopt a new one, more agreeable to our views, we 
cease to meet them upon the common ground of dispu- 
tation. We place them beyond the range of our argu- 
ments, by, at least according to them, a begging of the 
question, — petitio principii, — an assumption of the 
point in dispute. This is a sort of logical suicide, which 
at first seems to be harmless and safe, and is often con- 
sidered a prudent and righteous course ; but in reality 
amounts to self-felony. A disputant reduced to such a 



35 

necessity is regarded as vanquished, and is silenced by 
general consent. 

Were we to renounce the common version, and to 
translate for ourselves all the passages in debate betwixt 
us and the Pedobaptists, the shout of victory would be 
raised throughout all their ranks. The report would go 
far and wide, that we had been driven from our former 
position because we could not maintain it ; that we had 
imitated the Unitarians and Universalists, who, being 
unable to make good their creed, according to the au- 
thorized translation, had made new versions, which 
should agree with their principles, — thus making their 
notions of divine truth the standard of translation. 
Surely we should not find any advantage in being with 
such company. 

Again. The fact, that the English Bible in common 
use was made by professed Pedobaptists, is no con- 
temptible argument on our side. Nothing can be more 
evident in any book, than that baptize and baptism^ in 
the New Testament, mean immerse and immersion. 
But for this obvious and necessary meaning, would not 
the translators have been prompted, out of regard to the 
practice becoming somewhat prevalent in their day, to 
have rendered the words to pour or to sprinkle ? Surely, 
if they saw these ideas in the original word, and did not 
bestow some prominence upon them, they may be just- 
ly charged with unfaithfulness. 

It is a current opinion amongst us, that any reader of 
the English language,whose mind is not warped by pre-, 
possession, discovers nothing but immersion for baptism, 



36 

in the New Testament. So confident are we in this 
opinion, as to have professed our willingness, a thousand 
times over, to submit the controversy respecting the 
mode of baptism to any number of unprejudiced readers 
of English. They may be persons wholly unacquainted 
with the Greek, or any other language than plain Eng- 
lish ; only let them be unbiassed, and we confide the 
question to their decision. In their view, the case is as 
clear a one as was ever made out. Nothing in all the 
simple and faithful teaching of that book is more evident 
than baptism. By them a full and univocal sense is 
always attached to the word, whilst all the quibblings 
that have been resorted to for the purpose of establishing 
a different sense, lie undisturbed and dormant. If any 
suspicion could enter their minds, as to the fairness of 
the version, would it not be, suposing them to be igno- 
rant of its origin, that it had been made by Baptists, and 
that they had caused it to speak favourably to their side ? 
Would they not allege the doubt, — if any doubt could 
rise, — whether such a version would ever prove accept- 
able to those who adopted sprinkling instead of baptism ? 
But how would they be confirmed in their opinion, that 
the burial of the whole body in water is the only 
proper baptism, upon learning, that those who 
made the translation were not Baptists but Pedobap- 
tists ? " Those Pedobaptists," they would say, 
" have made a Baptist book ; and what is it, but a 
concession to the truth, an acknowledgment of un- 
deniable facts ?" Whilst, had the version been made 
by Baptists, it would have been rejected at once, as 



37 

a one-sided, partial thing. And surely, the com- 
batant, who meets his opponent with a weapon 
which that opponent selected and prepared, and 
put into his hands, must be regarded as an honest 
and generous antagonist. He seeks no advantage, 
but leaves to his very enemy the choice of the in- 
strument by which the contest is to be decided, 
All those who are united in the Bible Society, are 
employed in circulating the common version. All 
unprejudiced readers admit, that it wears a Baptist 
tinge. We strenuously maintain, that it has such a 
tinge, — given not by ourselves, but others. Let us, 
then, not weakly throw aside the benefit which they 
present us. Let us not deprive ourselves of all ac- 
cess to them, by closing up, for ever, the only door 
through which we can reach them. 

When, in the last place, we remind our readers of 
the danger of laying too much stress upon an ex- 
ternal rite, we must not be suspected of any inten- 
tion to undervalue baptism. It has its proper place 
in the Christian system, and when found in its place, 
is to be retained pure and inviolable, sanctified in 
its nature and sanctifying in its tendencies. But it 
is not regeneration, — it is not faith, — neither is it 
holiness. It is neither brotherly-kindness, nor cha- 
rity. It is not the vital principle of Christianity. 
It must not, therefore, be insisted on, to the exclu- 
sion of any of these. Let it be placed in due pro- 
portion with these, and not allowed to usurp their 



38 

stations, nor to supersede their functions. Baptism 
is indispensable to a full exhibition of Christianity, — 
and immersion is indispensable to baptism ; but 
faith and repentance are indispensable precedents, 
and holy obedience an indispensable consequence. 
Take from it what precedes and what follows, and 
it is a mere external rite. 

Much as we love that truth which constitutes our 
distinctive mark as a denomination, which in a de- 
gree places us by ourselves, and in a qualified sepa- 
ration from all other Christians, still would we shun 
the presumption of conferring upon it undue pro- 
minence. To make too much of it, is an abuse 
nearly allied to that which boldly extenuates its just 
claims. It was the error which began to show itself 
soon after the apostolic age, in the Christian church, 
to assign undue importance to baptism. It was at 
first properly enough associated with the idea of 
illumination ; but soon began to be regarded as il- 
lumination itself, and was shortly after received, 
almost universally, as regeneration. This was as- 
signing to it what the word of God does not, — and 
a consequent opening of the door to the most perni- 
cious abuses of the ordinance. The same abuse ex- 
ists among ourselves, in the present day ; and those 
who abet and defend it, have a new version. Im- 
mersion for the remission of sins, and as the only 
necessary regeneration, is a kind of watchword 
amongst them. The true doctrine of baptism is 



39 

lost sight of, and a mischievous invention of man is 
made to occupy its place. It is one thing, to hold 
to immersion and faithfully to practise it, as a duty 
commanded by Christ* It is another thing, to ex- 
aggerate its importance beyond the meaning and 
intention of the original command. We are tempted 
to this exaggeration, by the boldness and industry 
of those who divest the subject of its true dignity, 
by unwarrantable extenuations and changes of that 
command. Those who are on one extreme, when 
truth is in the middle, are a standing provocation 
to those who stand by the truth, to press to the op- 
posite extreme ; and it is well known, that, in many 
cases, extremes will meet. 

It is an undoubted difficulty betwixt us and our 
Pedobaptist brethren, that they have, for the most 
part, discontinued the ancient mode of baptism. 
But our greatest difficulty with them is, that they 
are Pedobaptists. And this difficulty would be in 
no wise lessened, by their universal adoption of im- 
mersion as the only mode of baptism. If they 
should accede to our proposal, to have the word, in 
all cases, translated, — but still persist in infant bap- 
tism, — they would remain as far from us as they 
now are. The practice of immersion, which might 
thus be common to them and to us, would be no 
uniting bond of fellowship, whilst they persevere in 
the application of the rite to their infant offspring. 



41 



REASONS 



PREFERRING THE 

ENGLISH BIBLE AS IT IS. 

Before proceeding to adduce, in detail, additi- 
onal objections to the proposed alterations in 
the authorised version, it will not, we trust, be 
considered incongruous, if we offer a few observa- 
tions, and quote a few authorities in favour of its 
general excellence and fidelity, as a human transla- 
tion. 

From the period at which this version of the 
Bible was orignally completed, to the present time, 
it has been the object of almost every species of 
assault, and its assailants have been found alike in 
the ranks of its avowed enemies and friends. Some, 
impugning the motives of its royal patron and ve- 
nerable translators, have alleged, that in nume- 
rous places misrepresentations and perversions of 
the original text abound, which were intended to 
support and advance party purposes, rather than to 
make " an exact translation of the Holy Scriptures 

into the English tongue." Others, without speaking 

d2 



42 

in the tone of recrimination, have affirmed the 
translation to be weak and defective, and unworthy 
the confidence which has so generally reposed in it. 

It is not our purpose, even could we compress 
our remarks within the prescribed compass of this 
article, to examine all the objections which have 
been alleged against the perfect accuracy and fide- 
lity of the received version. Waiving for the 
present, what we have to say upon the imperfec- 
tions with which it may be fairly chargeable, we 
would now briefly advert to the opinion held by 
excellent and learned men, that it is the best and most 
accurate version extant, and as such, claiming the 
homage of our judgement and affections. 

In the first place, we remark, that the forty seven 
professors and divines, who were appointed by James 
I., to re-translate, revise and correct preceding ver- 
sions, for the purpose of producing as perfect a transla- 
tion as possible, and of whose combined and arduous 
labours, the common version is the result, tvere pro- 
found philologists , men of ripe scholarship, and 
well skilled in critical acumen. That the literary ac- 
quirements and profound learning of the translators have 
been called in question we are not ignorant of, nor sur- 
prised at. Mr. John Bellamy, in his preface to a new 
translation of the Scriptures, has indulged in unjust and 
bitter complainings. He affirms that there was not a 
critical Hebrew scholar among them, — that the study 
of the Hebrew language, so indispensably necessary for 



48 

the accomplishment of this important work, was, in the 
reigns of Elizabeth and James, shamefully neglected in 
both the Universities, while attention was almost exclu- 
sively devoted to the different branches of mathematical 
science. Whether Bellamy asserted this through igno- 
rance, or a wilful perversion of a known truth, we leave 
others to decide. But it is difficult to imagine, how any 
individual, professedly acquainted with the literature of 
the reigns of Elizabeth and James, could be purblind to 
the fact, that so far from the Hebrew and Oriental lan- 
guages falling into neglect and disuse during those pe- 
riods, au contraire, they were among the first and pro- 
minent studies at Oxford and Cambridge ; and that 
men, profoundly skilled in both, composed the confe- 
rence who sat in solemn and mature deliberation at 
Hampton Court. Fulke, in his Defence of Transla- 
tions, speaks of many youths at Cambridge in 1583, 
who had mastered the difficulties of the Hebrew and 
Chaldee tongues ; and Todd, in his Life of Walton, 
alludes to an examination at the Merchant Tailor's 
School in 1572, by the Bishop of Winchester, who 
"tried the scholars in the Hebrew Psalter;" the 
master of which institution was Richard Mulcaster, a 
man skilled in Eastern literature, and under whose tui- 
tion was educated one of the first linguists of his time, 
Dr. Lancelot Andrews, whose name stands first in or- 
der upon the list of the divines commissioned to prepare 
the present translation of the Bible. With Andrews, in 
this responsible labour, were associated Dr. Adrian Sa- 



44 

ravia, a profound scholar, and tutor to the celebrated 
oriental critic, Nicholas Fuller ; Dr. R. Clarke, a tho- 
rough linguist ; Dr. Layfield, to whose Hebrew criti- 
cisms, Minshew, in his valuable Guide into Tongues^ 
pays a just and glowing eulogium ; Mr. W. Bedwell, a 
profound Orientalist, and tutor to the eminent Dr. Po- 
cock ; Dr. John Rainolds, of whom it is recorded, that 
such was his tenacious memory, he could turn to any 
particular passage which had impressed his mind in the 
library of books he had read, quoting with perfect accu- 
racy the page, volume and paragraph, and who, in the 
language of his biographer, was " most prodigiously seen 
in all kinds of learning, and most excellent in all tongues." 
Drs. Holland, Kilby, Miles, Smith and Richard Brett, 
men whose published works bear the traces of profound 
critical knowledge of the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, 
Arabic, Ethiopic, Greek and Latin tongues ; and not 
to expand the list, to mention but the names of John 
Bois, an accomplished Grecian scholar, who in the fifth 
year of his age, had read the entire Bible, and before he 
was six, had mastered the Hebrew, and who, for ten 
years filled the Greek chair in his College ; and lastly, 
Sir Henry Sarville, the celebrated editor of Chrysostom's 
works in Greek, and the founder of the professorships 
of astronomy and geometry at Oxford, These were 
among the venerable and learned men employed upon 
the authorized English version of the Scriptures, and of 
whom it has been unblushingly affirmed that not a He- 
brew scholar graced their ranks ! 



45 

With profound and varied learning, they undoubtedly 
possessed the qualifications of eminent piety. They 
were men fearing God. Men who felt the responsibility 
th:y sustained, and who, by much and fervent prayer, 
nought the divine illuminations of the Holy Spirit. Dis- 
trusting their own judgment and learning, and looking up 
to Him who hath the key of David, opening and no man 
shutting, they assembled in solemn conclave at Hamp- 
ton Court, " not too many, lest one should trouble ano- 
ther ; and yet many, lest haply many things might escape 
them, and praying to the Lord and Father of our Lord" 
for the wisdom that descendeth from above, thus they 
commenced, continued and completed their mighty un- 
dertaking. 

Passing from the consideration of the Translators, we 
proceed briefly to glance at the character of the Trans- 
lation itself. From the historical facts adduced in the 
preceding section, we believe it will be difficult for the 
most incredulous mind to evade the conviction, that the 
venerable translators were eminently qualified, both by 
their learning and their piety, to produce an accurate 
and faithful version of the Bible in the English language, 
and that if they have failed in their work, it was not in 
consequence of a deficiency of the necessary qualifica- 
tions. In speaking of the general excellency of the 
common version, we shall adduce in part, the testimony 
of men of unquestionable learning and established repu- 
tation, who have brought to the subject that patient and 
grave consideration which its great importance demands. 



46 

In the year A. D. 1652, a bill was introduced into Par- 
liament, providing for a new English translation of the 
Scriptures from the original tongues. After a period of four 
years, during which the proposal was allowed to slum- 
ber, "the Grand Committee for Religion" to whom the 
subject was referred, passed the following order : " That 
it be referred to a sub-committee to send for, and advise 
with, Dr. Walton, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Castle, Mr. Clarke, 
Mr. Pulk, Dr. Chadworth, and such others as they 
shall think fit, and to consider of the translations 
and impressions of the Bible, and to offer their opi- 
nions therein to this committee." In pursuance of 
this order the sub-committee, which was composed 
of some of the most profound linguists of the age, 
frequently met in consultation. In these conferences 
were made " divers excellent and learned observa- 
tions of some mistakes in the translation of the Bible 
in English ; vihich yet wag agreed to be the best of 
any translation in the world" Dr. Johnson, in his 
account of English translations, relates, that the 
Committee and their learned associates, u preten- 
ded to discover some mistakes in the last English 
translation, which yet they allowed was the best ex- 
tant" Dr. Walton himself prescribes to this decision 
in the prolegomena to his Pollyglott, where he 
places the received version in the highest rank of 
European translations ; and to this may be added 
the endorsement of his cotemporary, Dr. Pocock, 
the Prince of oriental learning, who, in the preface 



47 

to his Commentary on Micha, observes, " That 
translation from our own which we follow is such 
and so speakable to the original, as that we might 
well choose among others to follow it, were it not 
our own, and established by authority among us." 

Descending nearer to our own times, it is cheering 
to find the names of Dr. Geddes, Dr. Adam Clark, 
and the Rev. W. Orme, to mention no others, ar- 
rayed in defence of the excellency and general fideli- 
ty of the good old version. Dr. Geddes, whose ex- 
tensive acquaintance with biblical literature imparts 
to his testimony great weight, thus speaks of the 
authorized version : 

u The means and the method employed to pro- 
duce this translation promised something extremely 
satisfactory ; and great expectations were formed 
from the united abilities of so many learned men, 
selected for the purpose, and excited to emulation 
by the encouragement of a munificent prince, who 
had declared himself the patron of the work. Ac- 
cordingly, the highest eulogiums have been made 
on it, both by our own writers and by foreigners ; 
and indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest 
attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to 
constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this 
of all versions must, in general, be accounted the 
most excellent. Every sentence, every word, every 
syllable, every letter and point seem to have been 
weighed with the nicest exactitude, and expressed, 



48 

either in the text or margin, with the greatest pre- 
cision. Pagninus himself is hardly more literal, and 
it was well remarked by Robertson, above a hun- 
dred years ago, that it may serve for a lexicon of the 
Hebrew language, as well as for a translation." — 
Prospectus of a new Translation, p. 92.] 

Dr. Adam Clarke, who, notwithstanding his ec- 
centricities of opinion on some theological points, 
was a man of profound learning and critical acumen, 
and universally allowed to be one of the first bi- 
blicists of the age, and who had familiarized him- 
self with all the manuscripts and collections from 
manuscripts to which he cottld obtain access, thus 
speaks of the common version : — " Those who have 
compared most of the European translations with 
the original, have not scrupled to say, that the En- 
glish translation of the Bible made under the direc- 
tion of king James I, is the most accurate and faith- 
ful of the whole. Nor is this its only praise; the 
translators have seized the very spirit and soul of 
the original, and expressed this almost every where 
with pathos and energy. The original, from which 
it was taken, is alone superior to the Bible which 
was translated by the authority of king James.... 
This is an opinion in which my heart, my judg- 
ment, and my conscience coincide." — See the pre- 
face to his Commentary, p. xxi. 

We will detain the reader with but one other tes- 
timony, that of the late Rev. William Orme, a man 



49 

to whose scholarship and extensive erudition, his 
Bibliotheca Biblica^ and other writings, bear un- 
doubted testimony. In the former work, we find 
these observations on the character of our English 
version ; — " Like every thing human, it is no doubt 
imperfect ; but as a translation of the Bible, it has 
few rivals, and as a whole, no superior. It is in 
general faithful, simple, and perspicuous. It has 
seized the spirit and copied the manner of the di- 
vine originals. It seldom descends to meanness or 
vulgarity ; but often rises to elegance and sublimity. 
It is level to the understanding of the cottager, and 
fit to meet the eye of the critic, the poet, and the 
philosopher. It has been the companion of our prin- 
ces and our nobility, and prized by many of them 
as their most invaluable treasure. It is the birth- 
right of our numerous population, and has proved 
the means of knowledge, holiness and joy to mil- 
lions ; and we trust it is destined for ages yet to 
come, to be the glory of the rich, and the inheri- 
tance of the poor ; the guide to the way-worn pil- 
grim, and the messenger of peace to many a dying 
sinner." 

It will be observed in the remarks thus far made, 
that though we have stated in distinct terms our con- 
viction of the general excellence and fidelity of the 
authorised version, we have yet been cautious not 
to commit ourselves to the opinion of its perfect ac- 
curacy. That it is a human translation, is tanta- 

E 



50 

mount to an admission, that it is a defective trans- 
lation. It would be miraculous were it not so. The 
men who produced it asserted no claims to inspi- 
ration. They were fallable, and confessed it. They 
assumed fearful responsibilities, and were conscious 
of it. And we doubt not, that when their labour was 
finished, they were deeply humbled as they surveyed 
the traces of human imperfection they had left upon 
this, the work of their God. 

In specifying some of the defects with which this 
otherwise excellent and unrivalled version of the 
Sacred Scriptures, may be fairly chargeable, we can 
only observe in general terms, first, the want of 
uniformity in the mode of translating. Dr. Myles 
Smith, who penned the address to the reader re- 
cognises this imperfection, when he apologises for 
a want of " uniformity of phrasing." This how- 
ever can easily be accounted for, and perhaps was 
unavoidable, from the fact, that different parts of 
the work were assigned to so many different trans- 
lators. We might also complain of some modes 
of expresion which seem to disfigure the sacred 
page, and which are incompatible with the English 
version. Custom, however, and our profound 
veneration for the Book of God, have disarmed them 
of what, if found in other writings, or brought into 
common usage, would be highly offensive to our 
feelings and taste. We would rather, however, they 
should remain in the present version undisturbed 



51 

and unexpunged, for such is the constant fluctuation 
and progress of living languages, that words, now 
pleasant and familier to the L ear, may, in a cen- 
tury hence, be classed among the obsolete and 
the vulgar. A new nomenclature will have been 
framed, from which they will either be ejected 
entirely, or noticed only as words of bye-gone days. 
We think too we have have ground for just com- 
plaining, in the close adherence of the translators 
to their royal patrons prejudices in favour of epis- 
copacy, whose prescribed rule on this point, will 
be seen, by a reference to the " Directions to the 
Translators," quoted in the preceeding pages, ad- 
mits of but one interpretation. We might, were it 
demanded of us, notice other and minor imperfec- 
fections, touching the often unnecessary incum- 
berance of useless italics, errors in punctuation, 
chronology, divisions into chapter and verse, &c. 
But as they do not affect the fidelity of the trans- 
lation itself, we dismiss them, and pass to the con- 
sideration of another and more important subject. 



52 



ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS 

TO A 

BAPTIST VERSION 

OF THE 

NEW TESTAMENT. 

As far as we have succeeded in informing our- 
selves of the precise nature of the proposed altera- 
tions of the English text, a thorough system of ex- 
purgation is contemplated, which shall sweep away 
all the terms and forms of expression considered 
obsolete, and offensive to the refined taste of the 
age, remodel, and retranslate certain passages, with 
a more particular reference to the terms bap- 
tize ? and baptism in the New Testament, to words 
considered more consonant with the original text. 
Dissenting as we solemnly and unequivocally do, 
from such a proposition, in addition to the unanswer- 
able objections advanced in the leading chapter of 
this book, we respectfully solicit attention to the 
following :— 

1. The veneration and respect due to antiquity, 
might be fairly urged as a reason, why the autho- 



53 

rised English version of the Bible, should be per- 
mitted to remain as it is, unaltered and unimpaired. 
We are aware that the plea of antiquity, when 
urged in favour of any existing form of abuse, 
whether of a civil or religious character, is an 
invalid one, and that it has frequently been thus 
urged in defence of episcopacy and other ecclesias- 
tical institutions, we are not ignorant. Still we ho- 
nestly believe, that in the present case, it may be 
fairly and successfully pressed into the service of shield 
ing this u venerable monument of learning, of truth 
and of piety," from the invasion of a well meaning, 
but a rash and unhallowed zeal. For more than 
two hundred years have we, as Baptists, stood by 
the side of this common version. It has formed the 
rallying point of the denomination, the vocabulary, 
from which we derived our name — the authority which 
we have at all times produced in support of the 
distinctive principles which that name involves — and 
to whose decision, unaided by lexicons or lexicogra- 
phers, we have again and again, in and out our pulpits 
at home and abroad, submitted the question at issue be- 
tween our Pedobaptist brethren and ourselves. We have 
united too, with other portions of the Christian church in 
defending it from every form of attack to which it has been 
exposed ; — we have battled with it and battled for it, re- 
sponding to the saying of Chilling worth— the watch-word 
of the Christian camp, "The Bible, the Bible alone 

is the religion of Protestants." And is it true that 

■ 2 



54 

we have fallen upon times like the present, when, after so 
long a period of warfare and of triumph, entering as we 
now are, the " Saturday evening of the world," which is 
to usher in the glorious Sabbath of the thousand years of 
millenial rest, have we but just discovered, that the in- 
strument for which and with which, we have been con- 
tending is weak, imperfect and unsound ; — that the 
ground we have been standing upon is insecure, and that 
no time must be lost in demolishing the ancient fabric, and 
from its fragments constructing another, more in harmo- 
ny, as it is thought, with the original model ? We cannot 
bring ourselves to consent to such a step, — a step so dis- 
astrous in its consequences as we believe this will be, not 
only to the interests of our revered denomination, but in 
its more remote bearings upon the general cause of the 
Redeemer. 

And to say nothing of the door already open, which 
this measure on our part will tend more widely to 
throw back, for the admission of as many different ver- 
sions of the Bible as there are shades of opinion, or va- 
riety of sects, what yet is more revolting to our feel- 
ings, it will rank us with the Papist, the Unitarian and 
Universulist, each of which sects, has so altered, mutila- 
ted and defaced the Word of God, as to give a favorable 
complexion to their peculiar and heretical tenets. It may 
not be generally known, that not many years ago, there 
was published in Europe, a translation of the New Tes- 
tament chargeable with the most direct and deliberate 
subversion of one of the vital doctrines of Christianity. 



55 

In the last chapter of Revelations, where John speaks of 
his falling down to worship before the feet of the angel 
who had caused visions of glory to pass before his pro- 
phetic eye, it went the appalling length of substituting 
the word lamb for the word angel, and thereby repre- 
senting the Son of God, our adorable Emmanuel, as re- 
fusing Divine worship, abjuring Godhead, and declaring 
Himself a mere man, John's fellow-servant, and one of 
his brethren the prophets ! The translation, to the 
eternal honor of the government, was interdicted, after 
a very limited circulation. Now, what is the principle 
which our brethren are advocating, but the principle, 
which, if universally adopted by our denomination, would 
class us with those who dare to pluck the crown of dei- 
ty from the Redeemer's brow, and so alter and correct 
the sacred text so as to sustain and sanction their blas- 
phemous act. At their side we wish not to stand, and 
from their God-denying heresies and perversions of the 
truth, we shrink with instinctive horror. 

There is a sweeping spirit of innovation abroad, 
at war with every institution bearing on its front 
the time worn marks of antiquity. Things that are 
old are set aside or demolished, to prepare the in- 
troduction for things that are new. The wisdom of 
the past ages is denounced as the wisdom of the 
world's infancy, while that of the present is regarded 
as only worthy of the name. But where shall we 
look for wisdom more profound, for eloquence of a 
sweeter and sublimer order, — for poetry more trans- 



56 

cendent — for models in all the fine arts more exqui- 
site, for divinity more sound, or for piety so exalted, 
as the records of ages gone by will produce ? And 
yet, such is the political, and such the religious Ra- 
dicalism of the age, no fabric however sacred is se- 
cure from its levelling influence, if there be found 
upon it the dust and the impress of antiquity, — 
the Bible not even excepted ! We are aware that 
in disclosing these opinions, we shall expose our- 
selves to the uncharitable insinuations and distrust- 
ful surmises of a portion of the Christian Church — 
a portion who, regardless of circumstances and reck- 
less of consequences, push forward favourite theories 
and general rules beyond their legitimate and wise 
application. Nevertheless, we recognize it to be the 
duty of every Christian, to lift up his voice against 
this alarming evil, caring nought for the frowns of 
man, aud sedulous only for the approbation of Gcd. 
2. We object to the proposed verbal amendment of 
the New Testament, on the ground, that the words 
baptize and baptism are sufficiently explicit to the 
mind of an ordinary reader, rendering therefore an 
alteration entirely unnecessary, a work of mere su- 
perrogation. That the Translators of the common 
English version so understood the word baptize^ 
there is but little doubt. For, in numberless pas- 
sages, where a word of the same root is used, the 
technical or sacramental sense being out of sight, 
the Translators have given the primary and obvious 



57 

meaning. For example, Luke xvi, 24. u Send 
Lazarus, that he may fiaxpag dip the tip of his finger 
in water." etc. John xiii, 26. " To whom 1 shall 
give a sop when I have Qaxpccg dipped it. And when 
he had epPaipas dipped the sop, etc. Revel, xix, 13. 
u And he was clothed with a vesture Qe Qaaueiov 
dipped in blood. That James himself so understood 
the word baptize to signify immerse, we gather 
from a Speech which he delivered to his Parliament 
in the year 1605, about two years anterior to the 
commencement of the present version, on the disco- 
very of the Gunpowder plot. Speaking of the de- 
struction of the old world by the flood, he says, 
u For as God for the punishment of the first great 
sinners in the originall world * * * did by a ge- 
nerall delluge and overflowing of waters, baptize the 
world to agenerall destruction, etc." And in another 
part, alluding to the overwhelming calamities that 
would have ensued but for the discovery of the 
treason, he says, cc I should have been baptized in 
blood, and in my destruction, not only the kingdom 
wherein I then was, but ye also, by your future in- 
terest would have tasted of my mine." 

And for what, as touching the mode of the insti- 
tution, have we been so long contending, for what, 

but that baptize signifies nothing more or less, than 
to immerse, to dip, to plunge, to cover over. We 
have, times without number, declared the terms to 
be one and the same in their meaning, capable, upon 



58 

just rules of philological criticism of no other in- 
terpretation. And when the unlettered enquirer has 
sought our instruction, anxious to know what was 
truth respecting this ordiance of the Church, what 
books have we placed in his hands to guide him in 
his research ? To what authorities have we referred 
him ? With what philological criticisms have we 
perplexed him ? Have we quoted Parkhurst and 
Campbell and Buxtorf to'prove to him that the word 
baptism signifies immersion ? Nay ; such a parade 
of learning would be lost, as to any beneficial effects, 
upon two thirds of our enquirers. What course then 
have we pursued ? We have taken the English Tes- 
tament from his hands, and turning to the passages 
where the words baptize and baptism occur, and mar- 
king them, have returned the sacred book, and dis- 
missed the disciple with the prayer, that the Eternal 
Spirit of God would bless His own truth to the enlight- 
ening and sanctifying of the mind. And what have 
been the results of this simple mode of instruction ? 
Results ! our answer will be found in the thousands of 
monthly accessions to the Baptist Church throughout 
these States of converts recently awakened, and led to 
follow Christ in the way, by reading, with no other 
lexicon, but prayer, and with no other interpreter 
but the Spirit,— the common English version of the 
Scriptures. What this version has accomplished, it 
is capable of accomplishing yet again. This sword, 
though it has wrought many sublime and bloodless 



59 

victories, has lost nought of the lustre of its blade, 
nor the keenness of its edge, but is as mighty 
through God, as ever, in putting to flight the ar- 
mies of the aliens, and in pulling down the strong 
holds of error and sin. 

And yet it is proposed to abandon the ground as 
untenable, to relinquish our ancient and revered ti- 
tle, and to proclaim to our opponents that the in- 
strument to which we were wont at all times to ap- 
peal, is discovered to be weak and imperfect, and 
that discarding it, w r e have constructed one more to 
our purpose, to whose authority they must impli- 
citly bow. "If the term baptism do not determi- 
nately signify that the ordinance should be adminis- 
tered by immersing the subject in water, we shou d 
be glad of information what other expression could 
have conveyed that idea. * * * It may therefore be 
safely concluded, that if there be nothing in the de- 
sign of the ordinance, nor in the apostolic practice, 
inconsistent with the notion of dipping, we do not 
deserve reproach for insisting that baptism and im- 
mersion are terms equivalent.* 

3. We object to the proposed expunging of the 
terms baptize and baptism, because we regard it as 
contravening the providence, and as betraying a 
diminished confidence in the wisdom and power of 
God. 

It must be remembered that the question stands 

* Brooks 5 Pedobap: Exam: vol. 1, p. 130. 



60 

distinct from all others of a kindred character. It 
occupies a position peculiarly its own. It has no con- 
nexion whatever with that of foreign translation.The 
proposal is not to translate,for the first time, the word 
0a7iTt^w and its derivatives, into another and a new 
language — a language never before hallowed as a 
vehicle for the conveyance of the sacred Word of 
God. If this were the question before us for deci- 
sion, our course would be obvious, and our duty im- 
perative. We have, on more than one occasion, 
avowed our belief, that in establishing Christianity 
in regions hitherto unblest with its light 7 we were 
urged by solemn duty, to establish a pure and substan- 
tial Christianity ; — not a dismembered and mutilated 
system, paired down to conciliate the prejudi- 
ces and so maintain a hollow form of union 
with other sects — but the Christianity of the Bible, — 
its positive institutions, its doctrines and its pre- 
cepts beautiful and pure as they came from the hands 
of their illustrious Founder. That in giving the 
Word of God to the heathen, the modern missionary 
is bound by the most imperative obligations, — obli- 
gations the violation of which would expose him to 
the last and heaviest of the Divine anathemas — to give 
as accurate and faithful a meaning of the original, as 
the idiom of the language in which he translates, will 
allow. u The creed of the Christian," to borrow the 
sentiments of a powerful and eminent writer," is the 
fruit of exposition ; no part of it is elaborated by 



61 

processes of abstract reasoning, no part is furnished 
by the inventive faculties. To ascertain the true 
meaning of the word and phrases used by those who 
4 spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 
ought to be the single aim of the theologian"*. 

Holding these views and assuming these princi- 
ciples, we have ever regarded the honest and digni- 
fied course pursued by Drs* Carey and Judson, in their 
department of translation, as securing to them, in an 
eminent degree, the favour of God, and the gratitude of 
the denomination. 

But the question before us, though of a kindred cha- 
racter, is not to be regarded in the same light, or decided 
by the same rules. What is the question ? It is pro- 
posed to amend certain verbal expressions found in the 
New Testament, which are supposed to express ob- 
scurely the mind of the Holy Spirit on one of the 
ordinances of the church, and which are considered, 
therefore, unworthy a place in the sacred canon. But 
by whom was the translation made ? How long have these 
terms remained there ? What has been the effect of 
their present position ? Are they so very obscure, and 
vague, as to leave the enquirer in total darkness respect- 
ing the mind of the Spirit, and if so, are the Baptists re- 
sponsible for that obscurity ? These are questions 
claiming a calm and dispassionate consideration. 

It is an historical i fact, the truth of which none will 
question, who have accustomed themselves to trace the 

* History of Enthusiasm. 
F 



i 



62 

onward progress of our distinctive sentiments, that the 
great majority of those who now swell, and are weekly 
augmenting the ranks of the Baptist denomination, were 
led to the abandonment of their pedobaptist sentiments, 
and to the adoption of their present views, (under the 
teaching's of the Spirit,) mainly through a simple and 
prayerful reading of the English version of the New 
Testament. Ambiguous as the terms which set forth the 
ordinance are supposed to be ; obscure and unintelligible 
*as it is argued, the mind of the Holy Spirit is developed, 
yet has God, in the goodness and wisdom of His Provi- 
dence, employed and blest this version, to the uprooting 
of error, the melting away of long cherished prejudices, 
and the constraining of thousands to welcome " the 
truth as it is in Jesus," and to bow their necks to its 
mild and gentle yoke. What more do we expect from 
a Baptist version of the New Testament ? Granting 
that the literal term is, and should be so expressed, im- 
merse, and that thus altered and amended, it should go 
forth, borne far and wide upon the wings of every wind ; 
still, what new and brighter hopes are cherished ? What 
more splendid triumphs of truth over error ? What 
more signal achievements of the mighty power of God 
in the vindication of His own Word? What increased 
gathering of converts lining the banks of the baptismal wa- 
ters, are expected, from the diffusion of this new and 
amended version '? We tremble while we utter it, but 
fidelity to the cause of God and truth, demand its utter- 
ance—we fear the very opposit3 of these glowing antici- 



&3 

pations will be the result. The work wrested, as it were, 
from the hands of God, and placed into the hands of 
man,— an arbitrary course marked out for the operation 
of the Holy Spirit— undue dependance placed upon verbal 
and unnecessary distinctions, — the success of the truth 
made to rest upon human ingenuity, — God's providence 
contravened, and a diminished confidence in His wisdom 
and power betrayed, what more can be expected, than 
defeat, disappointment and mortification. God may 
leave us to learn that man's highest strength is weak- 
ness, and his profoundest wisdom but folly. 

4. Such a work must necessarily be an indi- 
vidual, and therefore an irresponsible one* On this 
ground we prefer an objection. 

From whom ought such a work, suppdftng it be 
called for, to issue ? From one or more isolated and 
irresponsible individuals, or from the collected wis- 
dom, learning and piety of the denomination, met 
at its call, in solemn convention ? Surely there can 
be no hesitation in deciding. And who are the per- 
sons from whom the proposal lias proceeded ? We 
ask for information. Are they men in whose purity 
of motive, weight of character, ripe scholarship 
and profound critical acumen the denomination 
have implicit confidence ? Are they such men, as 
a representative Convention from every Church in the 
Union, convened for this purpose, would select, and 
into whose hands such a work would be confided. 
And when the proposed expurgation has taken place, 



64 

and the proffered amendments made, who is to gua- 
rantee their perfect accuracy ? What literary repu- 
tation is pledged that the work, when done, has 
been well done, and done faithfully ? We enter our 
decided protest against this individual and irrespon- 
sible assumption of a denominational work, and this 
committal of an extensive Christian body, to the pe- 
culiar opinions and measures of a few of its mem- 
bers. Let these queries be soberly and candidly 
pondered. 

5. We urge as another objection to the proposed 
measure, the tendency which it will have to sow the 
seeds of discord and disunion among brethren now 
happilj agreed in upholding and disseminating the 
one versiffhy so long the record of their appeal, and 
the bond of their union. As a denomination, we are 
now engaged in a great work, — the work of giving 
to the millions of India the word of God in their 
vernacular, faithfully translated from the original 
text. To this work we were called by the move- 
ments of Divine Providence, so marked and signifi- 
cant in their character as not to be misunderstood, 
and when known, not to be disregarded. Scarcely 
embarked in this difficult enterprise — our operations 
yet in the germe of their development — our forces 
but partially organized— many objections yet to 
meet, and many opinions yet to reconcile, we re- 
quire all the harmony of sentiment and of feeling 
which it is possible for a denomination, so peculiar 



65 

as our own, to bring to the decision of a most Impor- 
tant question. It requires then, no profound saga- 
city to perceive, that, to call off the attention of the 
whole denomination at the present moment from the 
consideration of a subject so momentous, to divide 
its interests and distract its counsels, by the agita- 
tion of a question comparatively so insignificant, is 
inconsiderate and impolitic ; and did we not think 
the remark might be considered uncharitable, we 
would say, that it argued a painful lack of sensibili- 
ty to the true interests of the kingdom of Christ. 

That the sentiments of the denomination will 
be brought to harmonize in the adoption of the 
proposed amended version we do not believe. The 
proposed abandonment of the words baptize and 
baptism, and the substitution of the kindred terms, 
immerse and immersion, will doubtless attract to 
itself the favourable suffrage of a few. Its plausi- 
bility will beguile and its novelty will charm them. 
But the more reflecting, perceiving that nothing 
is to be gained by the alterations, while much will 
be hazarded ; caught by no specious reasoning, and 
won over by no puerile argument, will withhold 
from the translation their sanction and their patro- 
nage, and still retain at the domestic altar, in the 
study and in the pulpit, the good old English Ver- 
sion, endeared to them by a thousand tender and 
hallowed associations. Such we think, will be the 
disorganizing tendency of the question agitated 



66 

either at the present, or at any future time. Brother 
will be arrayed against brother, church against 
church, and association against association, and the 
Book, that should have been to us as a heaven 
wrought ligament, binding each to the other, and 
all to it, will thus become the organ of strife, dis- 
cord and dissension. From such a catastrophe, 
may the GOD of the BIBLE preserve us ! 



■ 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



V 



